Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

A thought about our significance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I don't do this often, but,

    Really, Seer? After everything I've said, that's what you came away with? Your comment is both disengenuous and, quite frankly, ridiculous. You simply continue to underscore my point.
    I was tweaking you Carp...



    I see - so it IS possible to pick and choose from what is in the bible - especially if it is in the OT. So let's focus on the NT, shall we?
    • The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak. 1st Corinthians 14:34
    • You should not use outward aids to make yourselves beautiful, such as the way you fix your hair, or the jewelry you put on, or the dresses you wear. - 1st Peter 3:3
    • So if your eye—even your good eye—causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. Matthew 5:29
    • And if your hand—even your stronger hand—causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. Matthew 5:30
    • Don’t swear an oath at all. Matthew 5:34 (puts a new twist on the Pledge of Allegiance)
    • But I say to you, Do not resist the evil man [who injures you]; but if anyone strikes you on the right jaw or cheek, turn to him the other one too. Matthew 5:39
    • Give to those who ask, and don’t refuse those who wish to borrow from you. Matthew 5:42
    • When you pray, go to your room, shut the door, and pray to your Father… in that secret place. (Matthew 6:6)
    • Don’t store up treasures here on earth, where moths eat them and rust destroys them, and where thieves break in and steal. (Matthew 6:19)
    • Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Matthew 5:32
    • If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters… he cannot be My disciple. Luke 14:26


    So, are we to assume that you consider all of these to be moral absolutes that all Christians must follow? And I presume, from what you have said, that any sect that does not strictly enforce these requirements is promoting immorality?
    Talk about disingenuous. Did I ever use the word absolute? And you just can't scatter shot - I would be happy to discuss every point individually, post it on the Apologetic board.



    No - you are aligned to the subjective moral code of this god (if he/she/it exists) as you understand it. And you have subjectively determined to make that alignment by valuing this god above all other things. If/when you decide this god does not exist, your moral code will likewise shift because you will no longer value this being.
    That does not change what I said, if I do align my moral code to the law of God I am aligning to something universal.



    No, Seer, I did not miss the point. I pointed out (again) the flaw in your analogy to mathematics. Until you deal with that flaw - the rest of the analogy simply fails and I cannot trust anything you deduce from it. As I have noted, several times, moral codes are more analogous to legal codes. I listed the similarities: they both deal with differentiating "ought" and "ought not" action, they both can be codified in various ways, they both are expressed by communities, they both typically reflect consequences to violation. Legal systems are by no means "objective" and there is no conflict/contradiction. I've seen no one claiming "legal systems are irrational and absurd because two countries could have opposite laws." Yet moral systems, which are closely analogous, are accused of this exact problem. Yet no one can seem to explain why that is true of the one and not of the other. And you keep dodging this question, insisting that moral codes are more like mathematics with no basis except your insistence.
    No you are not getting the point, you are arguing against an argument I wasn't making in this thread. You attacked the idea of universal moral truths based on the reasoning that we find moral subjectivism in the world. That is a non sequitur. Any more than if we were all stupid and couldn't figure out math sums that that would speak against universal math truths.

    Actually - it corrects what you said to what actually occurs.
    No it doesn't, you are just repeating your morally relative view point.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Going back to the original thread topic of how odd it would be that a god is focused on such a small area of the Universe, it is something I sometimes wonder about. But it could be that for there to be a universe in which intelligent life can exist, there must also be trillions upon trillions of stars and a vast amount of empty space. So maybe God works within the realm of natural laws to create a universe in which humans (and quite possibly other forms of intelligent life) exist. It just so happens that those creatures are going to be incredibly tiny on the grand scheme of things. I'd imagine if there are aliens they'd have their own religions, (or at least would have had them at some point in their history), but obviously there's no way to know for sure until we meet any. There's no reason a deity couldn't be concerned about the lives of humans and also the lives of intelligent creatures on other planets.

      At the same time, it's hard to tell exactly how said deity would express his/her/its concern for humans or other creatures. Maybe God allowed humans to evolve in such a way that they would develop moral faculties and be able to regulate their own behavior. And so maybe all religions are valid in a sense because they serve a purpose that God wants at a given time and place. The main problem with this line of reasoning is it doesn't answer the problem of evil, but I only see two answers to that problem: either the Universe is fundamentally unfair, or there is a form of heaven where even nonbelievers of your faith can make it in. And sadly there's no compelling evidence to me of the latter other than my wishing it were so.

      That's just my mind wandering, but feel free to respond to my casual thoughts.
      Last edited by stfoskey15; 03-21-2018, 02:47 PM. Reason: spacing
      Find my speling strange? I'm trying this out: Simplified Speling. Feel free to join me.

      "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do."-Jeremy Bentham

      "We question all our beliefs, except for the ones that we really believe in, and those we never think to question."-Orson Scott Card

      Comment


      • Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
        Going back to the original thread topic of how odd it would be that a god is focused on such a small area of the Universe, it is something I sometimes wonder about. But it could be that for there to be a universe in which intelligent life can exist, there must also be trillions upon trillions of stars and a vast amount of empty space. So maybe God works within the realm of natural laws to create a universe in which humans (and quite possibly other forms of intelligent life) exist. It just so happens that those creatures are going to be incredibly tiny on the grand scheme of things. I'd imagine if there are aliens they'd have their own religions, (or at least would have had them at some point in their history), but obviously there's no way to know for sure until we meet any. There's no reason a deity couldn't be concerned about the lives of humans and also the lives of intelligent creatures on other planets.

        At the same time, it's hard to tell exactly how said deity would express his/her/its concern for humans or other creatures. Maybe God allowed humans to evolve in such a way that they would develop moral faculties and be able to regulate their own behavior. And so maybe all religions are valid in a sense because they serve a purpose that God wants at a given time and place. The main problem with this line of reasoning is it doesn't answer the problem of evil, but I only see two answers to that problem: either the Universe is fundamentally unfair, or there is a form of heaven where even nonbelievers of your faith can make it in. And sadly there's no compelling evidence to me of the latter other than my wishing it were so.

        That's just my mind wandering, but feel free to respond to my casual thoughts.
        As a deist, do you think God has any concern for humanity?
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          No according to Seer God's commands can never be morally wrong. That still does not change your moral insanity Roy...
          So if God commanded the Nazis to gas Jewish children, it was morally good.

          How do you know he didn't?
          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            !
            +
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              +
              .
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                So if God commanded the Nazis to gas Jewish children, it was morally good.
                Unpossible!!!

                How do you know he didn't?
                Because the Jews are His Chosen People!
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  I was tweaking you Carp...
                  I'll take your word for it. It looked remarkably like your regular arguments, so it's hard for me to tell the difference.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Talk about disingenuous. Did I ever use the word absolute? And you just can't scatter shot - I would be happy to discuss every point individually, post it on the Apologetic board.
                  Wait - so the moral codes put forward in the NT are NOT absolute? But they ARE objectively true...and what god wants? You're not being particularly clear. I gave you precepts from the OT, and you told me that not everything in the OT was an absolute/objective/universal. So I switched to the NT and the same thing applies? So just what part of your moral code IS objective/absolute/universal, and where does one find that in the documentation?

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  That does not change what I said, if I do align my moral code to the law of God I am aligning to something universal.
                  This god's moral code is not universal in any way that is different to how my moral code is universal. I believe my moral code should apply to all sentient beings in all places. This god apparently believes the same. Certainly you believe the same of yours, but have decided to align your code to your interpretation of this god's code. The difference is simply degree of power. No doubt, if this being existed, it knows more than I, could crush me like a bug, and...well...that's about it. Perhaps this being is capable of following its own moral code without flaw (which I certainly can't do). But it certainly seems unable to convey its moral code in a way that the creatures on this planet that worship it can consistently understand and apply. That seems decidedly odd. I know you chalk it up to "sin." I also recognize that imposition on free will basically negates morality. But knowledge does not. So why is it that this god cannot impart this supposedly universal moral code in a way that there is no question what is and is not moral, and all that remains is for individuals to act on it (freely)? This all-powerful being cannot get past "sin" to ensure the knowledge is clearly received and understood? Really? My first thought is "so much for 'all-powerful.' " My second thought is, the difference is scale - and not much else. It is not functionally different.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  No you are not getting the point, you are arguing against an argument I wasn't making in this thread. You attacked the idea of universal moral truths based on the reasoning that we find moral subjectivism in the world. That is a non sequitur. Any more than if we were all stupid and couldn't figure out math sums that that would speak against universal math truths.
                  No - I am arguing against moral objectivism and universal moral truths on the basis of their complete absence and the inability of anyone to demonstrate their existence or the basis for their existence.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  No it doesn't, you are just repeating your morally relative view point.
                  Yes - I am repeating the way I observe morality works in the world, and in my own personal life, together with the basis for why I believe that is so, and how it applies even in the theist's world - even the one claiming they are subjct to moral universals (which they cannot demonstrate the basis for or existence of).
                  Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-21-2018, 04:49 PM.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    Unpossible!!!



                    Because the Jews are His Chosen People!
                    Didn't God have the Jews scattered and dragged off into slavery on at least a couple of occasions? And that's before Jesus came into the picture.
                    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      I'll take your word for it. It looked remarkably like your regular arguments, so it's hard for me to tell the difference.
                      I triggered you...


                      Wait - so the moral codes put forward in the NT are NOT absolute? But they ARE objectively true...and what god wants? You're not being particularly clear. I gave you precepts from the OT, and you told me that not everything in the OT was an absolute/objective/universal. So I switched to the NT and the same thing applies? So just what part of your moral code IS objective/absolute/universal, and where does one find that in the documentation?
                      Just because some moral laws and commands were necessary given particular circumstances does not mean that they were not objective (their source being grounded in God). And that does mean that others laws and commands are not universal...



                      This god's moral code is not universal in any way that is different to how my moral code is universal. I believe my moral code should apply to all sentient beings in all places. This god apparently believes the same. Certainly you believe the same of yours, but have decided to align your code to your interpretation of this god's code. The difference is simply degree of power. No doubt, if this being existed, it knows more than I, could crush me like a bug, and...well...that's about it. Perhaps this being is capable of following its own moral code without flaw (which I certainly can't do). But it certainly seems unable to convey its moral code in a way that the creatures on this planet that worship it can consistently understand and apply.
                      Read your New Testament, those commands are not difficult to understand, and we live with the fact that sin clouds our moral judgement. If sin wasn't present we would naturally and intuitively love God and our neighbor, we would always by kind and follow the golden rule. See Carp, when I see evil in the world I see that there is something really wrong. If you are correct we are just animals doing what animals do.

                      So the difference is scale - and not much else. It is not functionally different.
                      Except if you are right, when I die I will simply be worm food, if I'm right you will face justice after death. A moral continuum.


                      No - I am arguing against moral objectivism and universal moral truths on the basis of their complete absence and the inability of anyone to demonstrate their existence or the basis for their existence.
                      Right, so why is your limited knowledge the basis for anything? That still does not show that universal moral truths don't exist.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        I triggered you...
                        Umm...no...not really...

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Just because some moral laws and commands were necessary given particular circumstances does not mean that they were not objective (their source being grounded in God). And that does mean that others laws and commands are not universal...


                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Read your New Testament, those commands are not difficult to understand, and we live with the fact that sin clouds our moral judgement. If sin wasn't present we would naturally and intuitively love God and our neighbor, we would always by kind and follow the golden rule. See Carp, when I see evil in the world I see that there is something really wrong. If you are correct we are just animals doing what animals do.
                        So - because of sin...god cannot make his/her/its moral code clear and unambiguous? That's the botton line, right? God cannot reach through "sin" to make him/her/itself understood. That does not sound like an all-powerful being to me.

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Except if you are right, when I die I will simply be worm food, if I'm right you will face justice after death. A moral continuum.
                        I don't do scare tactics, Seer. I live by what I believe to be the right thing because I believe it is the right thing. I follow my moral conscience as best I am able. When I die - there is either a god or there is not a god. If there is no god, such is life. If there is a god, this god either values someone who constantly seeks to do what is good/right, or this god does not. If this god is the former, I'm fine*. If this god is the latter, then I will happily spend my "eternity" in hell. That is not a god I would want to worship. If that is arrogant, so be it. If this god wants me to follow a specific moral code and considers it "absolute" and "eternal," then it behoves him/her/it to make to crystal clear. If he/she/it cannot, then this god will have to accept the results of that limitation.

                        * I think this is how my Christian wife thinks about this - and why she is convinced I am going to spend eternity with her.

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Right, so why is your limited knowledge the basis for anything? That still does not show that universal moral truths don't exist.
                        I think you have this backwards, Seer. I follow my moral code to the best of my ability, and form my moral code of the basis of information available to me. If there is such a thing as this universal/objective moral code, then it is up to this god to make it crystal clear. If not - if this god cannot even make its own existence crystal clear, never mind his/her/it's moral code, then I don't know what to say to you. If you think you can make it crystal clear, go for it. Based on our discussion (so far) about your "source" for this moral code, I have to admit I do not hold out high hope.
                        Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-21-2018, 05:36 PM.
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          This is your typical response. You pretend like you are so much smarter than everyone else that you won't even bother to explain why they are wrong. The truth is you are a moron who doesn't grasp the concepts involved, you know you are a moron, and in order to save face want to pretend you are not a moron while running away leaving it to others to hopefully bail you out.
                          No, actually it is not my typical response. Like I said, I've gone over this with you a thousand times over, so how could running away be my typical response. I've explained it and explained it and it just goes in one ear and out your other. The problem is not my not being able to grasps the concepts involved, the concepts are simple, the problem is your inability to follow logic. Now, try to focus and I'll try to explain it to you once again for the umpteenth time. If, as you believe, all of time exist, then all of time has existed since time began, since time was created. Its called the B-theory of time. Do you understand what that means? That means that all events in time have always existed as well, it means that you're not choosing anything, it means that you're experience of making choices is an illusion, it means that there is no free will. Do you follow? I hope so, its a rather easy concept to understand I think, but I'm beginning to doubt it will ever sink in with you. Once again, if all of spacetime exists, then all events in spacetime exist as well, in other words the state of such a universe is static and your experience of doing, of acting, of making choices, is an illusion.
                          But okay, next we will tackle the alternative option, even though it is an option that you don't believe in.

                          Okay in this option, all events in time have not occured , the future is open, time flows, or we flow through time. Right? Now, it's possible that we have free will in this scenario, but not with omniscience, not if knowledge of our futures exists. Okay, here's the explanation as to why that is the case. If our futures are fixed as knowledge before we even exist, then that foreknowledge is the same as the static universe in the first scenario, it is fixed, it doesn't change, it can't change, and so we can only act in accordance with that fixed foreknowledge, we can't change it, so though the future is open, our choices therein are destined, not free. Do you follow?

                          Now instead of having a conniptchin and calling me names show me the logical error in the above, and how you fit free will and omnscience together.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            So the next time someone like you or Roy brings up how evil God was to order the deaths of women and children, we can just laugh at you and your quaint subjective moral sense.
                            Or we could laugh at you because you think an atheist might say that God did something.

                            You think your moral framework isn't subjective, but it rests on your preferred religion, your preferred interpretation of scripture and your preferred resolution of inconsistencies within that interpretation - as well as your personal preferences to override them when you want to.

                            If you actually had an accessible objective moral framework (as opposed to your current unclear, inconsistent, incomplete one that you frequently disagree with) you wouldn't have had so much difficulty with the self-driving car test.
                            Last edited by Roy; 03-22-2018, 05:35 AM.
                            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                            MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                            MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                            seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              So basically if modern society decides that pedophilia is morally OK, then it becomes "good"? And if you disagree, then your opinion doesn't matter, cuz there is nothing ACTUALLY wrong with pedophilia, it is just that our current society thinks it is wrong and some future society might not.
                              No, Sparko, that's your problem, not ours.

                              If your god/priest/bible decrees that paedophilia is morally OK, then it becomes "good", and if you disagree, then your opinion doesn't matter, because in your moral framework there is nothing ACTUALLY wrong with paedophilia, it is just that our current society thinks it is wrong while a bible-based society might not.

                              Good luck finding anything relevant in the bible. You may discover that your rejection of paedophilia is your personal preference and not objective morality after all.
                              Last edited by Roy; 03-22-2018, 06:24 AM.
                              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                Umm...no...not really...
                                seer appears to be getting desperate because he actually does think that slaughtering children is reasonable.
                                Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                                MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                                MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                                seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X